Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:- œThe complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:- (i). to pay the sum of Rs.21,503.12/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report (R1-4/B); minus the benefit of no claim bonus given to the complainant. (ii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant. (iii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @12% per a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now the appellants), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed :- i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,53,276/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim, till realization. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1), and directed Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (now the appellants), as under:- œ In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed as under :- i) To pay the amount of Rs.6,72,694/-, to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor on Total Loss basis?; ii) To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 to 3, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)and(ii) above s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ13. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To refund Rs.2,86,086/- received from the Complainant towards the Membership; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 14. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.3.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ12] In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay the sum insured amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant as the expenditure incurred by him on the said treatment was more than that. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment due to their deficient act, besides paying Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several. This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) as under:- œ9] Rs.In view of the foregoings, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to repair the Wall Clock in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by carrying out necessary repairs, making it fully functional, without charging any labour charges and give 6 months warranty period towards its repair on account of any defect in the Clock. However, the OPs shall be at liberty to charge for the replacement of any part of the Clock, if needed. We order accordingly. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.? 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant gave his Wall Clock for repair to the Opposite Parties, as its str...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2013, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainants (now appellants) only against Opposite Party No.2 (now respondent No.2) and did not grant any relief against Opposite Party No.1 (now respondent No.1). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that Opposite Party No.2, being the employer of complainant No.1, proposed and got Mediclaim Policy 2007 (Hospitalization Benefit Policy) for its employees and their families, from Opposite Party No.1, for the period from 13.12.2010 to 12.12.2011 (Policy Annexure C-1). Complainant No.1 being the employee of Opposite Party No.2 alongwith his wife complainant No.2 and Mr. Ritik Som, was covered under the Policy. During the currency of the Policy, Complainant No.2 had abdominal pain, and was taken to Panchavati Diagnos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Objection-Petition filed by the Opposite Parties was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Consumer Complaint, bearing No.210 of 2013, was filed by the complainant (now appellant), which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2013, by the District Forum, and the Opposite Parties were directed as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. The OPs are directed:- i) To make payment of interest on the amount of Rs.10.00 lacs deposited by the complainant @9% p.a. from the date of deposit upto 22.1.2013. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and unfair trade practice employed by the OPs. iii) To make p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, with a view to secure the payment of any shipment, from its buyers, if got blocked, delayed or lost, due to commercial and political risks, availed of the services of the Opposite Party, and submitted proposal dated 15.09.2010, alongwith a cheque of premium. The Opposite Party, issued Insurance Policy No.SCR 0320000430, on 21.10.2010, for the period from 20.09.2010 to 30.09.2012, for the maximum limit of Rs.1 Crore, with a condition of monthly declaration of shipments, and due dates of payment of the same. After obtaining the said Policy, the complainant declared and submitted the monthly shipments, vide letters Annexures C-5 to C-8, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a Honda City car model SMT, Colour Tafeta White, after paying Rs.2 Lacs vide cheque No.255573 dated 30.5.2011, receipt whereof is Annexure C-4, and sales contract dated 29.5.2011, Annexure C-1, was signed. It was stated that certain discounts/additional benefits were offered, as part of the deal, for the purchase of the said vehicle. It was further stated that the total amount payable for the car was settled at Rs.8,40,000/-, including paint protection coating, a body cover and two cushions as additional benefits, while a built-in CD Player was to be provided with the STM model as standard accessories. It was further stated that upon insistenc...
Tag this Judgment!